Isiaka Rufai V. The State (2001)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

WALI, J.S.C.

The appellant Isiaka Rufai, Alhaja Asiawu Abonko and Yinusa Osolale were arraigned before the High Court Oyo State and sitting at Ibadan, jointly charged with the murder of Bolape Olalekan on or about the 3rd day of June, 1989.

At the end of the trial before Aderemi. J, he concluded as follows:

“In sum, having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the totality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I find solidly proved beyond reasonable doubt the charge of murder against the 1st accused only, and I hereby find him alone guilty of the murder of Bolape Olalekan at Ibadan on the 3rd of June, 1989”.The two other accused persons charged along with appellant, Alhaja Asiawu Abonko and Yinusa Osuolale, having been found not guilty, were discharged and acquitted.

The appellant appealed against his conviction to the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division which, at the end of the hearing unanimously dismissed the appeal and confirmed his conviction by the trial court.

The appellant has now further appealed to this court against the Court of Appeal judgment.

As required by the rules of this court parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument.

In the Court of Appeal, only one ground of appeal was filed by the appellant. Extension of time by this court was sought and granted as a result of which two additional grounds of appeal were filed.

As I said earlier the appellant and the respondent filed and exchanged briefs in which issues were formulated by them. The appellant raised the following issues:-

See also  Olaseni Akinyemi Aiyeola V. The State (1969) LLJR-SC

“1. Whether the charge of murder preferred against the appellant was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

This is predicated on ground one.

  1. Whether in the absence of the evidence of PW 2 the circumstantial evidence relied on by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeal to convict the appellant point irresistibly to the guilt of the appellant in the circumstances of this case.

This is predicated on ground two.

  1. Whether the trial, conviction and sentence passed on the appellant and affirmed by the Court of Appeal is not a nullity in view of the failure of the trial court to comply strictly with the mandatory provision of section 215 of Criminal Procedure Act, Cap. 80 Laws of Federation 1990.

This is distilled from ground three.”

The respondent on his part raised the following two issues:-

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *